Are you following this climatologist email scandal?

[Mike DC]

(oops)

[Ghoste]

I didn't say we shouldn't have a discussion nor am I implying that science is unable to make predictions.  I said, or tried to say, that I have yet to see any evidence that is going to sway my opinion that man made global climate change does not exist.  Everyone is telling me I shouldn't ignore the science, so lets see it.  Where is the scientific proof that it exists.  Until someone steps forth with that evidence this is all rhetoric, mine and yours.  Yes, science can make all kinds of predictions.  Believe it or not I can even accept that if the ice cap melted, the sea level would rise and coastal cities would flood.  
As for the spaceshot analogy, if I send a chimp to space and it survives, I haven't proven that humans will.  I've only proven that that a chimp did.  Not that it will again.  But I did prove something.  If I computer model the spaceshot, all I have done is to put the information I think I know into a giant electronic filing cabinet.  The I allow a program created by a man to take the data input by a man and see what file it points to.  Maybe it says spaceshots are safe but it doesn't know about foam breaking off the booster.  Maybe it says it's always deadly and we never go.  My point is the computer hasn't proven anything.  Yes, we learn from it but do we alter the globe for it?  If I posted dyno results from an engine I built carefully follwing a desktop dyno program and I came on here crying about the fact that my actual dyno results were so much less than the desktop dyno prediction, everyone would be telling me what a fool I was for believing the computer program and that real life is where it counts.  I think the global climate is considerably more complex than an engine so I fail to understand why I would put my faith in it.  Watch it to learn something sure, but not accept it as proof positive.  For all the times when science has predicted things that came through there are just as many that have turned out to be blatantly wrong, and thats even with hard experiments and proper procedures.   I am all for them continuing their efforts to find the truth I just want them to quit lobbying the governments to "do something".   Do something about what?  They haven't proven anything on this topic yet.  
We seem to all be in agreement here that having the governments involved has been detrimental but people who subscribe to this theory, and especially the researchers who believe it, have been very diligent about making it political.  One of the most holier than thou of them all, Dr. David Suzuki even went as far as to say that any politician who doesn't believe in it should be jailed (I forget the word for word quote but that is pretty close to it).  He did backpedal slightly when the comment caused an uproar by saying that he didn't mean it literally.   Right, whatever.
As far as throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I'm not the one who faked data to make it coincide with my desired results.  I'm just an unfortunate sot who didn't believe it before and now am even less inclined to do so.  That does not mean I have fallen victim to anyones political tactics.  What it means is that I have a different point of view than you do.
So I ask you, what are we actually discussing here, the validity of the whole man made global climate change theory, global climate change at all, global apocolyspe, scientific method, politics, what?  

[0X01B8]

Q.  If your wife gives birth to 3 girls in her first three pregnancies, then what are the odds going into her 4th pregnancy?

I don't know, but if the GW theories come true, then there's a 90% chance the baby will have gills.

As far as throwing out the baby with the bathwater ...

As I've proved, the baby will be able to absorb oxygen from the bathwater, so it will be just fine.  Don't use too much bubblebath, though.

[defiance]

LOL - thread over, you win 1 intertoobz.

[0X01B8]

I've prepared an artist's rendering -

[bull]

Trying not to be annoyed here, but perhaps you should try actually reading my post.  It kinda says just the opposite of what you seem to think.  

I think my statements in that post are pretty much indisputable:

1) if the GW theories are wrong and we try to fix it anyway, we waste billions of dollars.

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

If you can read that and the other posts I've made in this thread, and think I'm advocating "act now", there's apparently a comprehension barrier involved somewhere.  My statement throughout this thread has been that following the wrong answer is bad, so we need to stop the political nonsense and get to work finding which answer is right.  That's all.

I don't think I'll respond to those implying that science is unable able to predict anything that will happen; I could provide 10,000 counter-examples, including the entire technological underpinning to your way of life, but it would just be silly - that argument really doesn't deserve further attention.

I was agreeing with you in part by saying if people believe in human-caused GW they typically have an "act now or we all die" mentality about it, which historically has been espoused several times before in the examples I cited previously. So I'm agreeing with you on the "if" part and expanding on it with examples of past "global emergencies" that never came to be. And I understand that you're saying if the GW theories are right, extremely terrible things will happen but where I tend to disagree (or at least not agree fully) is that it's possible that even if GW were true all these terrible things might not necessarily happen anyway. IMO it's not necessarily an either/or argument as most people claim on one side or the other. It's arrogant of humanity to assume its got this all figured out so I don't believe in a "do nothing" attitude any more than I believe in the "act now or we all die" scenario. I've always believed that we should do our best to take care of what we have, and stupid red necks who dump bullet-riddled washing machines and old tires in the woods ought to be fined harshly, but I don't believe the Earth is a fragile piece of thin crystal that must be vigilantly guarded by a bunch of holier-than-thou, legislation-happy eco-nazis either.

[Ghoste]

Thank you Bull, that sums up my own feelings about this theory much better than I have been able to convey them.   But damn you for bringing this contentious issue to the table.  

[defiance]

Ok - so you propose that perhaps global warming is happening, but not as severe a problem as is suggested, then?  I agree that that's a possibility, but I was considering it all lumped in with option (1) - whether it's completely false or not really a problem, if we throw billions of dollars and tank our economy fighting something that isn't a threat, it's still a huge mistake, so same outcome.

My whole point here is, if we become so certain we know the answer but choose the wrong solution either way, we make a huge mistake, so we need to take a little time and really get it right.  

In any case, we seem to be agreeing as far as this part of the discussion goes, just arguing semantics now

[Steve P.]

Just to clarify:

1)  What I mean about my short runs to local places over and over with an electric little truck ~V~ my 02' F-250 Super Crew V-10 is this. According to what I have seen on the tube and Utube I should be able to drive about 100 miles on a charge in a Ranger or S-10 short box NOT using electric A/C. They also say that a full charger would cost less than $5.00 on avg. in California. (High electric). My 02' F-250 will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas and costs me about $80.00 to completely fill it. So if I had an electro-box for all my round town runs it would cost me about $15.00 to drive about the same distance as 1 tank of $80.00 gas. Of course I would have to replace all those damn batteries every few years as NO battery lasts much longer than 2 years in the Florida sun. So if it were a a 144Volt system I would have to buy 18 battery's. At about $60.00 per battery it would run about $1080.00. So over a 2 year period of my normal driving the electro-car would cost me about $1680.00 ~V~ $3192 in fuel + Oil changes and other maintenance. Not to mention another battery for the truck and it's about $85 for that one.. So $3277.00 combined. That is about twice the money I would spend on the electro box...

V-10 F-250  =  $3277.00
       VS.
Electro Box   =  $1680

The other thing,  I like BEER......

[Arthu®]

Just to clarify:

1)  What I mean about my short runs to local places over and over with an electric little truck ~V~ my 02' F-250 Super Crew V-10 is this. According to what I have seen on the tube and Utube I should be able to drive about 100 miles on a charge in a Ranger or S-10 short box NOT using electric A/C. They also say that a full charger would cost less than $5.00 on avg. in California. (High electric). My 02' F-250 will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas and costs me about $80.00 to completely fill it. So if I had an electro-box for all my round town runs it would cost me about $15.00 to drive about the same distance as 1 tank of $80.00 gas. Of course I would have to replace all those damn batteries every few years as NO battery lasts much longer than 2 years in the Florida sun. So if it were a a 144Volt system I would have to buy 18 battery's. At about $60.00 per battery it would run about $1080.00. So over a 2 year period of my normal driving the electro-car would cost me about $1680.00 ~V~ $3192 in fuel + Oil changes and other maintenance. Not to mention another battery for the truck and it's about $85 for that one.. So $3277.00 combined. That is about twice the money I would spend on the electro box...

V-10 F-250  =  $3277.00
       VS.
Electro Box   =  $1680

The other thing,  I like BEER......

I don't think they are talking here about whether it is better for your wallet but which is better for the environment. And there are good arguments raised that question if the electric or at least the hybrid cars are better for the environment, mostly due to the manufacturing of the batteries and the extra energy needed to produce the lightweight components.

Other than that I have no real comments. It was a good discussion to read, I think all parties kind of agree on the main problem at hand. Would love to participate but am in now way educated enough to voice an educated opinion. Do love to see that we are capable here of good discussions about something that is quite controversial and not have it burst in flames after 10 minutes.

Arthur

[mauve66]

yeah change is always good

1.  when the EPA required coal burning power plants to clean up their air emissions it created several types of ash, one of which is fly ash and is used in concrete production, from 1-40%, but the problem is that flyash can't harden like portland cement powder does so you can't use it to replace concrete and the rules for cleaning the air emissions on the power plants create so much of the ash that they are forced to store way more than they can sell.  some of the storage is below ground,( nobody seems to care what we put back in the earth just fill the damn hole up they say, until it gets in the ground water) and some above ground.  a year or so ago a dam in TN or KY broke holding back a retention pond full of ash and it washed down a valley into towns and water tables and cost another billion dollars to clean up.  due to this incident the EPA is now looking at classifing flyash as a hazardous material which will raise the cost of containment, shipment, and banning it from use in concrete which will result in the raising of costs to build things due to the 100% requirement of using straight cement and the added OTHER chemicals that will be required to protect the concrete from the attack of chemicals from the ground itself and the placing and finishing concrete in hostile environments due to the volitivity of straight concrete.  so lets see what we have here, the EPA created a ruling that cost power companies a fortune to abide by and that ruling created ANOTHER hazardous waste (besides co2) that will now have to be contained ,fixed whatever, which will again increase costs for power companies and also result in rising construction costs.  come on EPA, lets make ANOTHER RULE.

2.  everyone talks about the new enrgy efficient light bulbs but no one talks about the mercury thats in them, you know that stuff thats toxic to you and me and if a factory dumped it in a river years ago they would face billions in cleanup bills, cause its bad for our ground water???  well what happens when you break on on your kitchen floor??  your gonna sweep the glass into the trash but wait, did you get all the mercury off the floor??  you know that is hazardous to your pets and children crawling around down there.  just cause you wipe it doesn't mean all traces are gone, just ask the germs left behind when you don't use Lysol.  on its only a little bit you say, what about all the light bulbs that WILL get thrown into the trash each day and end up in the landfill.  whos gonna pay the billions of dollars it will take to clean up the land fill 50 years from??  if the EPA has a hard time finding things to regulate, YOU are gonna be next, when they find out you broke a bulb in your house and didn't use the appropiate safety measures to contain "the spill" are you gonna wanna pay the 5K bill for "properly" cleaning up your kitchen

3. the batteries in those hybrid cars have already been mentioned.................................

4. what about the caustic/toxic chemicals they dumped into the drivetrains of the clunker cars so they won't pollute anymore?? they sit on the ground getting rained on and that rain is washing the crap into the ground which once again goes to the water table, at the scrap yard before and after they get chewed up, or if they are getting melted (remember you have to seperate the metals to recycle them)

this is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many many more examples

[mauve66]

Just to clarify:

1)  What I mean about my short runs to local places over and over with an electric little truck ~V~ my 02' F-250 Super Crew V-10 is this. According to what I have seen on the tube and Utube I should be able to drive about 100 miles on a charge in a Ranger or S-10 short box NOT using electric A/C. They also say that a full charger would cost less than $5.00 on avg. in California. (High electric). My 02' F-250 will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas and costs me about $80.00 to completely fill it. So if I had an electro-box for all my round town runs it would cost me about $15.00 to drive about the same distance as 1 tank of $80.00 gas. Of course I would have to replace all those damn batteries every few years as NO battery lasts much longer than 2 years in the Florida sun. So if it were a a 144Volt system I would have to buy 18 battery's. At about $60.00 per battery it would run about $1080.00. So over a 2 year period of my normal driving the electro-car would cost me about $1680.00 ~V~ $3192 in fuel + Oil changes and other maintenance. Not to mention another battery for the truck and it's about $85 for that one.. So $3277.00 combined. That is about twice the money I would spend on the electro box...

V-10 F-250  =  $3277.00
       VS.
Electro Box   =  $1680

The other thing,  I like BEER......

I don't think they are talking here about whether it is better for your wallet but which is better for the environment. And there are good arguments raised that question if the electric or at least the hybrid cars are better for the environment, mostly due to the manufacturing of the batteries and the extra energy needed to produce the lightweight components.

Other than that I have no real comments. It was a good discussion to read, I think all parties kind of agree on the main problem at hand. Would love to participate but am in now way educated enough to voice an educated opinion. Do love to see that we are capable here of good discussions about something that is quite controversial and not have it burst in flames after 10 minutes.

Arthur

thats assuming the electric box could haul the exact same loads as the 250, which it will never do, unless your getting 1 light bulb each time, and i hope they aren't the mercury filled ones..............

[RD]

Ok - so you propose that perhaps global warming is happening, but not as severe a problem as is suggested, then?  I agree that that's a possibility, but I was considering it all lumped in with option (1) - whether it's completely false or not really a problem, if we throw billions of dollars and tank our economy fighting something that isn't a threat, it's still a huge mistake, so same outcome.

My whole point here is, if we become so certain we know the answer but choose the wrong solution either way, we make a huge mistake, so we need to take a little time and really get it right.  

In any case, we seem to be agreeing as far as this part of the discussion goes, just arguing semantics now

I think the main issue that brings about divisiveness is this...

GLOBAL WARMING: MAN-MADE OR NATURAL? (and you can say GLOBAL COOLING too if you were in the 80's or the 1800's or whenever they have found mini-ice ages)

If those that propose its man made, well.. they need to provide proof.  If its natural, then they need to provide proof... but honestly I dont think any of them know what is the cause of the recent temp changes.  It is all conjecture on their part to try and understand something that is so immense, both physically and intellectually.

And for the record, I am definitely one to agree with eco-friendliness and lowering one's impact on nature as I enjoy it so, but I think this recent trend (or fad if you want to call it that) is just taking our eyes off of the true ecological dangers out there that are affecting nature NOW, as in RIGHT NOW.. not the near or far future.

[Steve P.]

Just to clarify:

1)  What I mean about my short runs to local places over and over with an electric little truck ~V~ my 02' F-250 Super Crew V-10 is this. According to what I have seen on the tube and U-Tube I should be able to drive about 100 miles on a charge in a Ranger or S-10 short box NOT using electric A/C. They also say that a full charger would cost less than $5.00 on avg. in California. (High electric). My 02' F-250 will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas and costs me about $80.00 to completely fill it. So if I had an electro-box for all my round town runs it would cost me about $15.00 to drive about the same distance as 1 tank of $80.00 gas. Of course I would have to replace all those damn batteries every few years as NO battery lasts much longer than 2 years in the Florida sun. So if it were a a 144Volt system I would have to buy 18 battery's. At about $60.00 per battery it would run about $1080.00. So over a 2 year period of my normal driving the electro-car would cost me about $1680.00 ~V~ $3192 in fuel + Oil changes and other maintenance. Not to mention another battery for the truck and it's about $85 for that one.. So $3277.00 combined. That is about twice the money I would spend on the electro box...

V-10 F-250  =  $3277.00
       VS.
Electro Box   =  $1680

The other thing,  I like BEER......

I don't think they are talking here about whether it is better for your wallet but which is better for the environment. And there are good arguments raised that question if the electric or at least the hybrid cars are better for the environment, mostly due to the manufacturing of the batteries and the extra energy needed to produce the lightweight components.

Other than that I have no real comments. It was a good discussion to read, I think all parties kind of agree on the main problem at hand. Would love to participate but am in now way educated enough to voice an educated opinion. Do love to see that we are capable here of good discussions about something that is quite controversial and not have it burst in flames after 10 minutes.

Arthur

thats assuming the electric box could haul the exact same loads as the 250, which it will never do, unless your getting 1 light bulb each time, and i hope they aren't the mercury filled ones..............

No. That is NOT assuming it can haul what my F-250 can. As I said earlier I have been remodeling my new house for the last several months. Many corners were cut in the building of this house and I have had to make very many trips to many building supply places. VERY MANY of the trips I had to make were for things needed at the moment. Most of them are very light and small loads. What I had said was that I could have made many trips to all of these places in a econo electric car. The footprint is much smaller than my V-10 truck. My latest comparo was money spent or would be spent over a 2 year period.

I am not trying to spin the conversation at all. I am simply saying that science is not all bad and that the GREEN movement is mostly headed in the right direction from a SAVINGS point of view. I would be happy with something not much bigger than a golf cart for the short trips.  My truck was bought to cover many jobs including cross country hauling of our beloved MOPARS.  It has also served me well in hauling stuff to the county incinerator. But if I could have found a Cummins diesel in the same truck and for the same kind of money I would have bought that.. 10 - 11 MPG sucks.....

Another point is that we make our own electric here in the States with our own fuels. Here in Florida we make most of our power with natural gas and nuclear fission. Of course they are NOT the best, but better than burning another country's fuel.

As far as the batteries go I think this is an area we need to put way more effort into. Along with wind, solar, LED lighting and insulation.

As far as our dumps, yeah... LOTTTTTTS needs to be looked at there. We need to go back to building things HERE and that LAST. We have become a "throw away" World. Cars today are built to last about as long as you car payments. Ever wonder why?? We've all got 60's and early 70's cars in our garages. What is built like that today?? Actually in many respects they are built better, just not to last 40 + years.

In a basket, there is good and bad to everything. It's our jobs to figure out the balance and try to leave this place better than we found it..

Just my .02

[Chargen69]

my only thought is "wow, ya'll made it to page 5 without this thing getting locked!"

[chargerboy69]

But damn you for bringing this contentious issue to the table.  

I was thinking the same thing.  I just did a twelve page paper for school on this very subject.  With that being said, I am resisting staying out of this debate on here, as tempting as it may be.

[Steve P.]

No need to lock it as everyone has kept their cool and debate and awareness is good.

Besides, I mentioned BEER..   

[RD]

No need to lock it as everyone has kept their cool and debate and awareness is good.

Besides, I mentioned BEER..   

where where.. i smell beggin!! oops  BEERR!!!! wheres the beer? wheres the beer?

[bull]

GLOBAL WARMING: MAN-MADE OR NATURAL? (and you can say GLOBAL COOLING too if you were in the 80's or the 1800's or whenever they have found mini-ice ages)

If those that propose its man made, well.. they need to provide proof.  If its natural, then they need to provide proof... but honestly I dont think any of them know what is the cause of the recent temp changes.  It is all conjecture on their part to try and understand something that is so immense, both physically and intellectually.

And for the record, I am definitely one to agree with eco-friendliness and lowering one's impact on nature as I enjoy it so, but I think this recent trend (or fad if you want to call it that) is just taking our eyes off of the true ecological dangers out there that are affecting nature NOW, as in RIGHT NOW.. not the near or far future.

Don't forget, we're at the if stage regarding whether there's been recent temperature changes. The topic that started this thread calls that into question in a big way.

What it boils down to IMO is just take care of what you've been given. Just like your car or your house; take care of this rock, don't thrash it, pick up your mess, etc. A little preventative maintenance goes a long way.

[defiance]

That's generally a good way to live, but if global warming is a real problem it's a bit different...  Thing is, most of the theoretical contributors to GW wouldn't normally even be considered "pollution" otherwise.  So in this case, I think we really do need to figure out the right answer.

[bull]

That's generally a good way to live, but if global warming is a real problem it's a bit different...  Thing is, most of the theoretical contributors to GW wouldn't normally even be considered "pollution" otherwise.  So in this case, I think we really do need to figure out the right answer.

Finding the right answer is laudable but implausible. And if the unbiased truth were something we could find, and it was dire, I seriously doubt we could do anything about it with our limited capability and limited knowledge regarding the potential side-effects of our actions.

[mauve66]

No. That is NOT assuming it can haul what my F-250 can. As I said earlier I have been remodeling my new house for the last several months. Many corners were cut in the building of this house and I have had to make very many trips to many building supply places. VERY MANY of the trips I had to make were for things needed at the moment. Most of them are very light and small loads. What I had said was that I could have made many trips to all of these places in a econo electric car. The footprint is much smaller than my V-10 truck. My latest comparo was money spent or would be spent over a 2 year period.

I am not trying to spin the conversation at all. I am simply saying that science is not all bad and that the GREEN movement is mostly headed in the right direction from a SAVINGS point of view. I would be happy with something not much bigger than a golf cart for the short trips.  My truck was bought to cover many jobs including cross country hauling of our beloved MOPARS.  It has also served me well in hauling stuff to the county incinerator. But if I could have found a Cummins diesel in the same truck and for the same kind of money I would have bought that.. 10 - 11 MPG sucks.....

Another point is that we make our own electric here in the States with our own fuels. Here in Florida we make most of our power with natural gas and nuclear fission. Of course they are NOT the best, but better than burning another country's fuel.

As far as the batteries go I think this is an area we need to put way more effort into. Along with wind, solar, LED lighting and insulation.

As far as our dumps, yeah... LOTTTTTTS needs to be looked at there. We need to go back to building things HERE and that LAST. We have become a "throw away" World. Cars today are built to last about as long as you car payments. Ever wonder why?? We've all got 60's and early 70's cars in our garages. What is built like that today?? Actually in many respects they are built better, just not to last 40 + years.

In a basket, there is good and bad to everything. It's our jobs to figure out the balance and try to leave this place better than we found it..

Just my .02

point taken, i ASSUMED that those trips would of been for big stuff thats needed when remodeling a house

my only thought is "wow, ya'll made it to page 5 without this thing getting locked!"

why lock it, we're just having a discussion, not making pipe bombs................................

I think the main issue that brings about divisiveness is this...

GLOBAL WARMING: MAN-MADE OR NATURAL? (and you can say GLOBAL COOLING too if you were in the 80's or the 1800's or whenever they have found mini-ice ages)

If those that propose its man made, well.. they need to provide proof.  If its natural, then they need to provide proof... but honestly I dont think any of them know what is the cause of the recent temp changes.  It is all conjecture on their part to try and understand something that is so immense, both physically and intellectually.

And for the record, I am definitely one to agree with eco-friendliness and lowering one's impact on nature as I enjoy it so, but I think this recent trend (or fad if you want to call it that) is just taking our eyes off of the true ecological dangers out there that are affecting nature NOW, as in RIGHT NOW.. not the near or far future.

yeah i remember the late 70's early 80's when "we were on the dawn of a new ice age", now its magically gone to the far end of the spectrum using the exact same data as they had back then, oh thats right, there is no more data.......................

for the record, i recycle anyway (even though i don't like the way they do it), i don't pour my oil down the ditch in front of the house to kill the weeds, i think we should preserve what we have to a point but when it starts costing billions to do something and then that item creates another problem that costs billions, i have a problem with it

[AKcharger]

Global Warming is just remarkable because it's the first "scare" govenments can tax you on and have absoulutly NOTHING to show for it

[RD]

Global Warming is just remarkable because it's the first "scare" govenments can tax you on and have absoulutly NOTHING to show for it

HOLY MOLY!!! NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THE REVENUE THAT CAN BE MADE THROUGH THIS FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!!  I am sad now.

[Tilar]

Man made global climate change does not exist.

I do not believe in the whole man-made global warming... Can anything we do contribute to it? IMHO About as much as taking a piss in the Atlantic ocean and causing the tides to rise..  I think as a race we tend to give ourselves more credit than is actually due. I don't think we have the kind of power to change anything God setup in the first place.

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

Take a clear glass and fill it 1/2 or 2/3 the way up with ice. Add water to it until all the ice starts to float and then make a mark on the glass to show the level of the water. Let the ice melt and see how much the water raises (or lowers) from your previous mark. There is your answer to the sea rising theory.


I'm not saying that I totally distrust science because a lot of good actually does come out of it, But I think things like carbon dating is fallible at best. They try to base facts on man made variables and to me the best they can come up with is a definite maybe. It's like programming software, You can make the result come out to your liking by just changing a few lines of code.